Saturday, 30 November 2013

There are many things that Unions and Traditional Conservatives have in common, we both support workers having a living wage, safety at work and dignity at work. We believe that workers are every bit as important as Management in making a firm profitable. Further we believe that all of those who work for the same Company or economic enterprise are on the same side.

So it could be said that Traditional Conservative support Unions, unfortunately thats abit simplistic because build into most Unions is an assumption that we reject. The assumption comes from Marxism and it says that every class is in conflict with every other class. Meaning that the working class and the management class are always at war, they are enemies and the working relationship is one of exploitation. The management class is always trying to exploit the working class. They cannot help themselves, only those who support the workers can see this clearly and as they can see it they can fight it. Ultimately only a Socialist or even better a Communist society can stop this exploitation.

This explains why Industrial disputes get so bitter, many Unionists believe they are always being exploited and they act accordingly. No matter how Management is really behaving. This is in reality in no ones interest as it hurts everyone.

Traditional Conservatives reject absolutely the idea of class warfare. We believe that different social classes provide mutual support and help those in each class to perform the jobs and tasks best suited to them. As each social class performs different tasks they cannot be enemies as they rely on the other social classes to perform tasks they cannot.

In short Labourers are as important to society as Doctors, it could be argued that Labourers are more important as society would cease to function quite quickly without Labourers. Without them who would load the trucks, or repair roads, or pick up our garbage. Not having any Doctors is only a problem for the sick or injured, in time that will include us all. That might be years or even decades away, there is no way our society can survive for anywhere near a year without manual labour. There are no surplus areas of society. We believe in a balanced society, not in class conflict.

Tuesday, 26 November 2013

A World of Mercenaries
Are you good at sport? I mean very good, good enough to be in the top competition? The answer is most likely the same as I would give, no. Well let us pretend that you are that good, at least until the end of the article.

Your so good that everyone around who's even vaguely interested in your sport and lives locally knows it. You've heard it from people you respect and soon the scouts come looking for you. They offer you big money, alot more than you've every seen before. But what do you think people would say if you turned the scouts down? Would they admire you or think you were mad? I'm sure it would all be alright when you explained that you would rather stay with you local team and live a life without all of the trappings that come with that sort of life.

In time people would move on but I doubt you would ever really live down the idea that you gave away fame and fortune for loyalty. People would shake theirs heads in disbelieve. Because it is so accepted that when we hear the sirens call we will answer, that we are powerless to resist. Most don't have a good reason to turn down an offer like that. But every time I see teams recruiting I think of all of the broken loyalties, of all the players joining teams they couldn't care less about.

Just the other day I saw young footballers on tv who had been drafted by teams they didn't barrack for, effectively renouncing the teams they had supported and I wondered if I was the only one shaking my head. I don't blame these young men, they are simply doing what they have been taught is right. That Loyalty is for sale.

But it's not just sports were the world of the mercenary exists. Business is of course the real home of the mercenary. Not because Business is without scruples but because when your goal is simplified to only making money how can it really matter if you make it in a good way or a bad way?

Only a few years ago a large Australian company lost hundreds of millions of dollars in a year and the executives still got bonuses, when confronted about this the CEO said that the board had no choice but to pay the bonuses because the year before they had lost money and not paid bonuses and executives had left. As hard as it may be to believe, but once upon a time, not that long ago executives expected to serve most of the their career at the same company and they stayed loyal to the company because it was loyal to them. It seems that when you treat your executives as mercenaries thats exactly what they become.

And last but not least, Mrs. Laura Wood is The Thinking Housewife, if you don't know this site check it out and if you like it remember she's on a Fundraiser at the moment (I just donated before I put this post together).

Sunday, 17 November 2013

Full Male Employment
No matter what your political beliefs are, if you went to a party and you met a man who worked and his wife who stayed at home and looked after their children you wouldn't think much about it, you would probably think of them as a nice, boring and normal couple. But for decades we have had a push to destroy this nice, boring and normal couple. To get her out into the workplace so she can compete against him. But the cost of such a society is high, economically, socially and personally.

I would like to state right off the bat that women have always worked and they have worked hard. Both in the home and outside and that should not be forgotten. But there is a great difference between need and desire. In the past women who worked needed to work, many still do. It is the desire to work that creates problems because nearly every women who works for desire is competing against a man. Those who work because they need to work may also be competing against men but most will seek work in jobs were they are needed and by default men are scarcer.

If you want to see quite starkly a society in which male employment is not seen as important one of the most visible is Black America. One of violence and anti-social behaviour, one of high rates of illegitimate births and low marriage rates and high divorce rates, one of macho and peter panism were the difference between men and boys is size and often not behaviour. If the men in this community had full time permanent jobs with a decent rate of pay I believe that these problems would start to sort themselves out, not totally but in large part. Unfortunately what has happened to Black America is the future of the entire Working Class worldwide unless something is done to stop Liberalism. Certainly Black America is not alone in having these problems but they are the most visible and here we can see the failed attempts to fix these issues and why they will constantly fail. All over the Western world we see women being given preferential treatment in employment, some of this is due to their education, something I'll do a post on at a later date.

Jane Austen wrote "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." The only thing I would add is that by fortune I would take it to mean that a man has enough income that he can look after his own needs and still has money enough to have realistic plans for the future. But unless a single man wins lots of money on the lottery or some other form of gambling, inherits or steals the money, he needs a job. One that pays enough for him to live on and some extra so that he can save and start to plan for the future. It also needs to be permanent and not casual or stopping and starting. Once these conditions are met then we will start to see benefits. He will be self sufficient, he will gain confidence and be more appealing to women. He will often desire permanence and will want to marry and have children. The present and the future are happening together.

But when a man is denied a permanent job, he will not have a regular and sufficient income. He will not be in most cases able to have a permanent relationship and if he has children they will not be born within marriage and he will in most cases be unable to support them himself. So instead of him having a job and looking after his own children, other people with jobs will be taxed to support his children. Talk about uneconomical!

When women work the opposite happens, the more money they have the less men are available for them to marry as they still want what nature has always wanted them to desire, a man capable of looking after them. So if a women makes $100,000 it doesn't really matter what a man makes as she is quite able to support herself and him. But that is not what she wants, it is not what nature wants either, the man in her life must be able to look after her, so roughly $100,000 is now the minimum income required to date this women. Of course women are individuals and you will find exceptions but it must be remembered that is what they are, exceptions.

A womens earning capacity destroys her chances of marrying but a mans earning capacity increases his.

A world were women are 50% of wage earners is a world in which Traditional Marriage is constantly under threat. Economically, Socially and personally the best arrangement is for a man to work in a full time permanent job and for his wife not to work. Economically double income families add to the cost of everything. Houses cost more, education, particularly Higher Education cost more, even insurance costs more as everyone factors in that everyone has a dual income. So instead of getting ahead of the rest your merely keeping up. Unless one of you stops working, then your falling behind. Economically double income families make no sense. For those who never marry it puts much of life out of reach.

For Traditional Conservative's supporting Full Male Employment has no drawbacks. It satisfy's us as being economically sustainable, socially it creates families and supports them and personally it supports men being men and women being women instead of pretending that we are all just equal and the same. While those who are not Traditional Conservatives will scoff and talk about discrimination, why isn't it that they never want to discuss the discrimination against the men and women who can never marry?

Wednesday, 13 November 2013

One area Traditional Conservatism is weak is economics, which is interesting as most other Political Philosophies have economics front and centre. In fact some of them seem to be economic theories with political ideas added later. But Traditional Conservatives often seem to know instinctively what economic ideas they support and which they reject. But because we don't tend to talk about it, it becomes hard to answer questions about why we believe in some things but not in others. To some we seem inconsistent because we often oppose what is regarded by most as the "Conservative" answer. I hope to provide some of the answers here.

The standard "Conservative" economic view looks something like this, Conservatives believe in Capitalism, creating wealth and not putting stops on money, for example taxes or controls on the movement of money. But that isn't Conservative, it's Right or Economic Liberalism. We do share somethings in common but we do not share everything.

First of all the word Capitalism was coined by Marxists in the 19th century to describe how Factories and Companies gathered money or capital together, hence the term Capitalism. It is a word that was taken up and used even by non-Marxists but it is not the same thing as Free Enterprise. Free Enterprise is the private ownership of wealth and the means of creating wealth, it is not about assembling money or capital, it is about ownership, effort, self sacrifice and self reward. Traditional Conservatives support Free Enterprise.

The two biggest economic problems that need answers are how to create wealth and employment, if an economic system cannot provide answers to both it's not working. An economic system that provided the answer to one but not the other is simply not good enough. Why are they both important?

Because without creating wealth an economy cannot survive, it does not need constant growth but it does need more growth than contractions. A contraction is the oppose of growth, when the economy shrinks in size. Just as we are not constantly happy, the same applies to the economy and there are both good times and bad. When it is good the economy grows, when it is bad it contracts. The growth is required to allow for those times when the economy is not growing, we live off the fat that was produced in the good times. If there is constant contraction then it is only a matter of time before the economy dies, then it's bad times all round, the creation of wealth is that important.

Just as the creation of permanent employment is important, for without permanent employment there is no joy to be gained by creating wealth. Wealth should exist to solve problems not to create them and when society is unbalanced thats a problem. As I've said before it is not that some people are rich and others aren't that is the problem, we believe in different social classes, but that in a country of plenty there should not be people who are trapped out of the economy. The wealth should be enjoyed by as many as possible. That means that all social classes should benefit not only one social class. In short we believe in social stability and without permanent employment people cannot afford to marry or have a family, it is a great wrong to both the individual and to society as a whole. Permanent employment spreads wealth and allows people to be self sufficient.

Another thing we are quite keen on is small and local. A local business owned by locals, means that nearly all of the benefits from that business will accrue to the local community. The money spent in the business will support local jobs and most of the profit and wages will also be spent locally. Unfortunately that cannot always be said of large businesses. They accrue money from all over and it often goes far far away. But we also like practical and sometimes small and local is not practical. So we are not against large business just for the sake of it.

We do however believe that there should be a level playing field. That businesses no matter there size should be able to compete on an equal footing with any other business. That brings Government into the equation, Government has an important role to play in the economy. It should 1) set standards and enforce rules, 2) it should build and maintain infrastructure and the functions of Government and 3) it should control all monopolies.

There are some who say that Government is too overbearing and that it should mind it's own business, the problem is the economy is it's business. It relies on the efficient running of the economy to finance it, all taxation relies on a functioning economy. To be involved in the economy and to set rules and to enforce them is a legitimate role of Government.

Just as in society were we believe in a balanced society so we believe in a balanced economy. An economy that benefits the most amount of people and not just special interests. An economy that spreads wealth through employment and local ownership instead of through wealth redistribution. An economy that encourages both self sufficiency and community instead of dependency. These aims are not unreasonable or unrealistic and if they came to pass they would help keep alot of people happy and very few unhappy.....at least economically.

Monday, 11 November 2013

The Eighth Month
Another good month, I've been happy to see Posts that haven't been linked to by others are in the top 10. Another thing that I've been quite happy about is how many people are finding the site by asking Google direct questions, such as asking, "traditional meaning of politics" or "is loneliness normal in adulthood" or "traditional conservatism". I cannot complain about Google at all. I'm also happy that the tenth country this month is double what the tenth country was last month, 24 instead of 11.

My best day was the 2nd of November when I had 88 visitors and my worst was the 19th of October when I had 15. Both are extreme, my average is around 40 visitors a day.

As always each month is from the 11th of one month to the 11th of the next month.

October - November

Entry

Pageviews

United States

577

Australia

154

China

67

United Kingdom

65

Indonesia

34

France

29

Romania

29

Ukraine

27

Japan

25

Canada

24

September - October

Entry

Pageviews

United States

491

Australia

210

United Kingdom

51

France

38

Russia

37

China

34

Ukraine

30

Netherlands

13

Germany

12

Canada

11

My American readership keeps on it's steady rise upwards, which I'm very glad to see.

Interestingly my Chinese readership has nearly doubled as has Canadian, which has more than doubled, admittedly from a very low base.

I also had a nice rise in numbers from the United Kingdom.

While both Indonesia and Japan have jumped into the top 10 and Romania is back.

The Ukraine is slightly down and France has fallen in numbers, but not by much.

My biggest disappointment has been my own country of Australia, my numbers have gone down by a quarter, what makes this particularly strange is that I wrote articles that were concerning Australia. I wonder if it's because my fellow Australians disagree with me or because a Right Liberal Government is now in power and people feel the country is now in safer hands?

Russia, the Netherlands and Germany have fallen out of the top 10, I still see visitors from those countries so it may just be that because the lower end of the table has risen they aren't being shown.

Other countries that have stopped by are Ireland, Sweden, Portugal, Serbia, Bulgaria, Saudi Arabia, India, South Korea, the Philippines, Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa. As always I'm glad to have you and I hope you find something to make you think on this site. If you have a question or comment, even a constructive criticism I'm listening.

Saturday, 9 November 2013

Last Thursday night the Eltham Traditionalist's got together to solve the problems of the World. I have good news and bad news. Firstly the bad news, we didn't solve any of the really big problems, in hindsight that might have been a bit ambitious. The good news is that we had a night of interesting conversation with like minded people. We didn't always agree but what was remarkable was how much we did agree. The conversation was fun, polite and at times daring, in many ways a perfect evening.

To anyone in or near Melbourne Australia, I would say your doing yourself a disservice if you read sites like mine and find much of it in agreement and your not attending. If your interesting send me an email, it's on the front page.

To everyone else not near enough to attend, I would say start your own Traditionalist group. It doesn't have to be big, even two people can start the ball rolling. Talk about what you dislike, even hate about the modern world and those who think they are our betters. Talk about your favourite books, movies or websites that you consider Traditionalist. Talk about Government policies and what you would keep or change.

I urge all of you to meet other Traditional Conservatives, reading is good, thinking is good, even getting angry can be good, but those things should be channeled into fighting for the future, our future not theirs, ours!